In this manuscript, the authors present and explain the data collected by their Atmospheric Surface Flux Stations (ASFS) during the SPLASH campaign in the East River Watershed in Colorado. They provide thorough background on the surface energy balance which provides sufficient information for understanding the various measurements and data products from ASFS which are described in the remainder of the paper. The authors go into detail on the set up of the sites, the data collection process, and the data processing. Given the information in their manuscript, I was able to easily understand their data sets and believe any scientist could successfully use these data with the guidance of the paper. Additionally, the data sets themselves are high quality, well documented, and sufficiently cleaned/QC’d.

I have a few small recommendations for improvement of the paper:

• In section 5.4, I believe equations 9 and 10 would benefit from a bit more explanation, specifically explaining all parameters in the equations. For example, in equation 9, I was unable to find the meaning of T_s; is this the temperature at the surface? Similarly in equation 10, is z_{soil} the depth of soil? This may be common notation, but if the n+1 and n-1 written as superscripts in the numerator of equation 10 are not exponents (i.e. are these time indexes?), it may be beneficial to explicitly note this. 
• In Figures 4b and 4c, the units of the Soil Depth are reported in meters with a range of 50 m, whereas in the manuscripts the soil probe is said to be 0.5 m in length. I believe this discrepancy is a simple typo, but if not, some explanation of how these measurements were taken should be added.

Other minor technical correction: In line 49, SAIL stands for the Surface Atmosphere Integrated field Laboratory, please add the world “field”. 

This manuscript describes surface flux and meteorology measurement datasets collected during the SPLASH campaign. The measurements were collected at two elevated sites along the East River Watershed valley floor using comprehensive instrument suites. Data files are QC’d and well-documented. The manuscript is well written: the theoretical background in sect. 2 is helpful for context; data processing is described in detail, and the authors properly delineate dataset caveats and workarounds, such as implementing RRTM calculations in resolving flux divergence issues. The discussion about the radiation field and differences between the ASFS and a nearby GML instrument suite is informative and makes general sense (e.g., the effective locality of the ASFS net radiation measurements vs. the GML station). The turbulent fluxes processing is also instructive and makes general sense, as depicted in Fig. 6. That said, I find the Hl approximations (likely the implementation for snow-free conditions) unusable and redundant, overshadowing the rest of this unique dataset. Based on Fig. 7, I wouldn't consider the Hl approximation as "sufficiently well" (l. 417-418). It might be a reasonable approximation for research tasks using 30-day running means or so, in which case the linear fit becomes more relevant, but on a daily or sub-daily scale, considering the absolute values of Hl, this looks inadequate (the range of Hl error is nearly equivalent to its absolute range, suggesting that this approximation is useless in most cases where one wishes to follow the nicely delivered theoretical description in fig. 2). I strongly recommend removing these approximations from the dataset and either revisiting those calculations or simply leaving all the components required for such calculations in the dataset (as I understand is already the case - l. 450-451). I think people could do better science with less good data than abusing bad data. Besides that, the manuscript is well organized and includes easy-to-understand figures, and I only have several minor comments.

-    Consider adding a table for symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms. The manuscript is full of them, and a table could help readers better orient themselves in the text.

-    l. 101 - refer directly to relevant panels where the ASFS are shown i.e., paneld d-f in Fig. 1 and d-e in Fig. 2.

-    l. 384 - was --> were

-    l. 416 - redundant apostrophe.

-    l. 434 - remove "To summarize"

-    Fig. 1 caption - Recommend noting explicitly that the ASFS is fully snow-covered in panel d because otherwise it becomes a "Where's Waldo" case...

-    Fig. 3 - recommend adding a total uptime percentage for each instrument.

-    Fig. 4—panels b and c—change the left y-axis label units to cm. Panel e—Given that the air temperature is already shown in panel a, I think the air temperature in panel (e) is redundant and somewhat confusing because it is difficult to evaluate the snow temperature with the current depicted color scale. I recommend masking the air temperature and adjusting the color scale only for the snow temperature range.